Author
Topic: South Dakota Abortion Ban (Read 2832 times)

Brother SouthSerb: I do not know whether this borders on politics or not.

Possible Ban On Abortions In South Dakota

South Dakota is on the verge of becoming the only state in the nation to ban abortions. Gov. Mike Rounds said he is inclined to sign a bill that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota, making it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life.

The ban, including in cases of rape or incest, was approved Friday by South Dakota lawmakers, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic in the state that provides abortions, vowed to sue. But even before the bill has a signature, money to defend it poured in. Lawmakers were told during the debate that an anonymous donor pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature was setting up a special account to accept donations. Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench. Lawmakers said growing support among South Dakotans for abortion restrictions gave the bill momentum.

Anyone want ot weigh in?

Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!

While I agree with the sentiment from a moral perspective, after much thought and consideration on the issue, I honestly believe it violates the 14th amendment principle 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' since abortion has been established as a privilege of citizens of the United States for decades.

I personally dislike the 14th Amendment, and do believe that it could be argued to be an illegal amendment along with the 15th, but so long as it is part of constitutional law, it must be upheld. And if Roberts and Alito are the strict constructionists I believe and hope them to be, they will put their morals and ethics aside and rule on the letter of the law.

Also, this is clearly a political issue and should be in the politics private forum.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

But nonetheless did not limit it to allow killing of a "human being." Are we thus allowed to kill illegal aliens?

In the case of an illegal alien there is no conflict of rights between the preservation of their life and the liberty of citizens. However, in the case of abortion there is, to prohibit a woman from having an abortion is a restricting of her liberty over her person in favour of the rights of a non-citizen, which is constitutionally prohibited by the aforementioned 14th Amendment. The argument that has to be made before the court is that the interest of the state in the child and the rights of the state supersede the rights of the woman, since the state is the only other constitutionally protected entity involved.

In your example of protecting aliens, illegal or not, it can easily be argued that the rights of the state supersede the right of an individual to kill at a whim. However, in the case of abortion this is much more difficult to argue, because there is a right that is expressly denied to the woman over her own body (furthermore, a right that has been now established for decades), which, as I've said, is prohibited to the states under the aforementioned 14th Amendment. Now, if there was a means of removing the child from the woman and raising it in an artificial enviroment, then it could be argued that the doctor preforming the operation would have to try and preserve the life of the child, if the state so ruled, but until such a technology exists I do not see how under the Constitution the state can do anything for the well-being of the Child.

While I believe that Roe v. Wade was a legally flawed decision, the fact that abortion has been legal for decades protects it under the 14th Amendment. Thus any attempt to ban abortion should take place at the level of a Constitutional Amendment...I move to repeal the 14th.

Quote

PS Just realized my other post is faulty. I should argue on the lines that just because it's not a citizen doesn't mean you're allowed to kill it.

Hmmm, I guess I'll let it go this time, but remember 'To blunder twice is not allowed in war.'

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

And yes, it seems to me that Roe v. Wade somewhat contradicts the 14th amendment indeed. Some many use Roe V. Wade as some sort of self-contradiction where no one knows where to cross the line.

However, I see no way that the 14th amendment will neither be repealed or easily amended. This will probably lead to traditional Civil War/slavery/racism polemics.

Buuuuuut, under the elastic clause, perhaps the Supreme Court may still illegalize abortion. Cannot we differentiate between the rights of one who is hindered due to the will of others and the rights of one who is hindered due to natural occurences? At least, one has the right to interpret that because of Roe v. Wade itself.

It may sound like it contradicts the 14th Amendment, but the elastic clause does allow different interpretation by the power of the Supreme Court. Take the fourth amendment for example. It is not meant to allow children to hide their cigarettes in their lockers or in their own bookbags, according to the Supreme Court and the power of the elastic clause.

Thus, Roe v. Wade can partially allow itself to interpretted openly as not at all to contradict the 14th amendment due to our wonderful elastic clause. In the end, the Supreme Court can justify itself in being constitutional without looking unconstitutional.

God bless.

Mina

PS Have mercy on my blunders

« Last Edit: February 26, 2006, 12:17:53 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I would adimently oppose such a Judicially Activist approach and I believe that the majority of Justices are sufficiently Strict Constructionist to oppose such an approach as well. The so-called 'elastic clause' states:

Quote

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The legal argument that was presented in favour of abortion relies entirely on constitutional arguments, congress only has the authority from the 'elastic clause' to make laws to carry out the powers given to the government by the Constitution...not the powers prohibited to the government by the Constitution. Any such legislation by congress or interpretation by the courts would be an abuse of the Constitutional system.

There is an established method for changing constitutional laws we do not like, amendment, I believe that it and no other method should be used.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

First off, Judicial Review was established in Marbury v. Madison, it is not in the Constitution.

Secondly, the concept of Judicial Review gives the Supreme Court the right and duty to review Laws of both States and the federal government that come before them to determine if they are consonant with the Constitution. It does NOT give them the right to re-interpret or change the Constitution itself. It is judicial review that makes the potential SD Law subject to review by the court, furthermore it is a principle that requires the Justices to rule on the law in light of the Constitution. Also, as the arguments that have been presented are constitutional in nature, the concept of judicial review should only strengthen them...unless, of course, you're suggesting that Marbury v. Madison should be overruled...LOL. What you are suggesting is judicial activism which I strongly oppose and Roberts and Alito at least claimed to oppose, though only time will tell if they were truthful. I hope they wont take that path as it only serves to undermine the rule of law...as I said before, the only proper channel to outlaw abortion, or even return the right to the states, at this point is through constitutional amendment.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

How then can one justify the loose interpretation of the fourth amendment when it comes to certain "exceptions" such as the New Jersey v. T.L.O, where checking a student's purse for cigarettes can be done without the use of a warrant?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

How then can one justify the loose interpretation of the fourth amendment when it comes to certain "exceptions" such as the New Jersey v. T.L.O, where checking a student's purse for cigarettes can be done without the use of a warrant?

I am not saying that judicial activism does not take place, simply that it is damaging to the rule of law and undermines the authority of the Constitution and our legal system; furthermore, I hope and believe that the majority of the Justices on the court share this opinion with me...that is why I wanted a conservative court, not because they make conservative decisions but because they are more likely to uphold the integrity of the Constitution, which is the primary job of the Supreme Court, not to legislate from the bench. And while I do not believe NJ v. TLO to be the worst case of judicial activism in the history of the court (Roe v. Wade was much worse from a constitutional standpoint...mostly because of the arguments that focused on the 4th amendment, which really doesn't apply, rather than because of the arguments based on the 14th), I do believe it to be a case of judicial activism, the Constitution makes not allowance for public schools, and certainly does not give officials of school extra authority to create a 'learning enviroment,' and while it may be reasonable for the school to conduct searches based on a reasonable suspicion for the purpose of enforcing their rules, any evidence found by such a warrentless search should not be admissible in a court of law. The courts ruling was judicially activist, bowing to social conditions and pressures, rather than upholding the letter of the law...I sincerely hope that our current court won't make continue the abuse that has been thrown against the constutition by past courts over the last 50 years.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

You make very good and consistent points, and perhaps I may agree with you. However, in the end, whether you call it "judicial review" or "judicial activisim," we can, for example, no longer say that checking a student's purse on mere suspicion in school is "unconstitutional," and in the end, it is the Supreme Court's majority interpretation that stands and must be followed (unless there is a Supreme Court overruling). The only way this can be stopped is if in fact a clear and unambiguous amendment in the Constitution allows no other interpretation. Thus, in the end, it is the Supreme Court that decides whether this is "Constitutional" or not, whether you agree or not.

God bless.

Mina

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

You misconstrue abuse of power by the court as the court's true power and responsibility. We had a very activist court in the 60's and 70's, a court that many Americans reacted against and I know many people who only vote republican because of supreme court nominations. Activism can backfire, it can make the american people react against whatever political idea is being advocated, potentially leading to a reversal of the decision in the future. The court misconstruing the Constitution to serve their own political whims is a threat to the very foundation of this republic, a court refusing to enforce the law, regardless of implications, is both dangerous and, in the case of the supreme court, treasonous.

Fortunately, I have faith that a majority of our current justices are strict constructionists and will do their best to rule in accordance with the letter of the law, and not their own political, religious, ethical, moral, etc. posistions. There's a chance you may be right about the court being activist, as two of the members are yet unproven, but I certainly hope not.

And yes, we can say that checking a student's purse on mere suspicion in school is unconstitutional, it is simply that the court (or, more accurate the court in 1985) failed to uphold the constitution. This is something I dislike about systems of common law, bad and even illegal decisions tend to stand because of custom, while in a civil law system a bad decision would simply be ignored when the next issue came up. Ultimately the flaw is in human beings, the perfect judge would be a computer capable of understanding all the issues all the history and all the law, but rule without emotion, political agenda, ethics, or morals...rule only according to the law. This is what we call upon our Justices to do and while some do a better job than others, none are perfect.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Well, it would at least slow flood across our southern boarder...perhaps we could try to argue that the state does not have a vested interest in stopping us from shooting illegals...the 14th amendment could yet prove to be useful after allÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

« Last Edit: February 27, 2006, 02:42:13 PM by greekischristian »

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry